First off, I peruse lots of different blogs. Of the fucktillions of blogs that exist, I have noticed entertaining trends among conservative-leaning ones. I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that 82% of such blogs have some sort of hokey red, white, and blue ultra-patriotic theme going on and/or include a Bad Ass photo of the blogger wearing badass shades, a baseball cap, and possibly proudly holding a firearm. Welcome to Real America, folks.

Anyway, I don't believe I had ever visited the above-linked particular blog before, so let me tell you, I noticed the formatting right away. Generally, as a blogger, I give readers credit to be able to figure out how to click on any embedded links within a particular sentence. These bloggers, however, perhaps just to make super-duper sure that everyone Gets It, include capitalized, bold-face lettering shouting at readers to CLICK HERE if they want to travel to other realms of the world wide web.

Then, erring in the other direction, the blog provides verbatim statements from the linked-to articles without encapsulating the quotations in quotation marks. How bizarre. It ends up being quite confusing, mostly because it's difficult to ascertain which statements are the blogger's and which are not. I figured it out the best I could by dividing the statements into two categories, Pro-Gay and Anti-Gay, and then inferring that the Anti-Gay statements were those of the blogger's. It was a lot of work, actually, that turned out to be not totally worth it in the end.

But those observations are rather petty. Entertaining and confusing, but petty. In the grand scheme of things, I am okay with anti-gay folks being poor communicators. It makes my job Advancing the Gay Agenda that much easier. A more substantive critique is that I also noticed that the two resident bloggers who seem to write quite a bit about really heated and controversial political issues don't even allow comments. Though to be fair, I suppose, there really is no need to hear what others have to say when one already knows everything.

When one knows everything, assemblages of histrionic conclusions without supporting arguments generally suffice, because everything is just so self-evidently true.

Now here, I was like, "Yeah, so what?" But then I remembered that in AntiGayLand, it is pretty much a given, a statement of Objective Moral Truth, that homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality and, as such, it requires no further elaboration actually explaining why it would be offensive to equate gay families with Real Families.

At this point, I will link to the evidencethat demonstrates that the kids of same-sex couples do just fine but, of course, such evidence doesn't matter to people who already know deep down in their guts the Objective Truthy Truth that Homosexuality Is Wrong, Bad, and Dangerous.

Observe, Gabriel telling it like it is:

"'Family Diversity' is a term that obscures the politically incorrect truth that not all family structures are worthy of appreciation or respect."

Families headed by same-sex couples are not "worthy of appreciation or respect"?

Oh really? Why is that, Gabriel?

Here's why:

"The forms of diversity of which Ms. Sullivan is enamored are, in the view of many people, profoundly wrong; and public schools have no right to use school hours, school resources, and public money to affirm Ms. Sullivan's unproven, divisive theories to children."

So, families headed by same-sex couples are not worthy of appreciation or respect because many people believe homosexuality is "profoundly wrong." That is a conclusion, not an argument. All it tells us is that same-sex parenting duos are bad because many people think same-sex couples are bad. It doesn't tell us anything about the merits or demerits of same-sex couples or parenting other than that a bunch of people aren't okay with it.

Now, at this juncture, it is worth mentioning that one of the arguments marriage equality advocates are making in the current Prop 8 trial is that it is unconstitutional for states to exclude same-sex couples from marriage because doing so sends the message that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. As attorney Ted Olson noted in his opening argument:

"...Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity."

That same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples is not exactly a point of contention among many "marriage defenders" and anti-gay folks. That is just a statement of fact that is accepted as a given, as it is to Gabriel here. Obviously, to them, same-sex relationships are not worthy of respect. They certainly aren't worthy of the same respect that Real Families are.

It is highly interesting to see the Prop 8 supporters and NOM now backpedaling and insisting that Prop 8 was not motivated by anti-gay animus, in light of the observable fact that anti-gay sentiments such as Gabriel's, above, are hardly unusual.

The message is very clear. We hear it all the time from folks like Gabriel.

We don't count. Our families aren't real like how heterosexual nuclear families are real. That isn't even up for debate, not on blogs or in courtrooms, because lots and lots of people believe that.

Oh, but Gabriel continues, not giving readers enough credit he states his conclusions as fact and offers us no arguments:

"The administration has no right to impose these unproven, divisive, and often religious beliefs, on teachers through Institute Day presentations or any other professional development workshops that focus on 'anti-bullying' or 'diversity.' And administrators have no right to expect or compel teachers to share Sullivan's subversive ideas with young children, many of whose parents have political, philosophical, moral, or religious beliefs that conflict with them."

While I appreciate this extra-special glimpse into what Gabriel believes administrators have "no right" to do, some argumentation to back up such claims would be helpful for us to, you know, follow along and come to a conclusion ourselves.

No comments:

Contact Me

Disclaimer

About Me

So, you've found your way to Fannie's Room. This space is an intersection between feminism, politics, LGBT stuff, and pop culture.
If this is your first time here, whatever your opinions are I invite you to stay awhile and take a stroll through the archives before making assumptions about what I believe.
Debate is welcome, if done in a civil manner.
If I'm not hanging out in Fannie's Room, I can probably be found plotting the homosexual agenda, plotting a leftist feminist takeover of the universe, and coordinating the recruitment effort of the lesbian branch of the Gay Mafia. So, my days are busy.
Also, this is a strictly non-commercial blog, so spam or ads in the comments will be deleted.